Thierry Fremaux Talks Cannes 2026, Hollywood, ‘Club Kid’ Thriving

The 79th Cannes Film Festival has wrapped, amid familiar complaints about the lack of Hollywood blockbusters, fewer American stars and a competition lineup that delivered a string of beloved films but no immediate consensus masterpiece. Yet, Thierry Frémaux sees a very different story. In his view, Cannes has never been more competitive, more influential or more resistant to the forces reshaping the entertainment industry. “In 25 years, the festival has become more intense and more efficient,” says the Cannes Film Festival’s longtime general delegate and director, arguing that the Croisette continues to thrive despite “the acceleration of social media, the logic of influence and the growing pressure of money.”

In his first interview since this year’s festival concluded with Cristian Mungiu’s “Fjord,” a political drama starring Sebastian Stan and Renate Reinsve, winning the Palme d’Or, Frémaux — who marked his 25th year at the helm in 2026 — pushes back against claims that Cannes is losing its Hollywood appeal, arguing that American cinema remains central to the festival (“The United States is the second most represented country in Cannes,” he says), even as the industry undergoes a profound restructuring. While acknowledging a lighter studio presence this year, Frémaux notes that stars including Adam Driver, Kristen Stewart, Michael Fassbender, Rami Malek, Cate Blanchett, Julianne Moore, Javier Bardem, Penélope Cruz, John Travolta and Vin Diesel all showed up.

Frémaux also suggests the impact of the lineup may ultimately be measured during awards season, as it’s been the case in recent years with “Anora,” “The Secret Agent,” “Sentimental Value,” “Emilia Perez,” “The Substance,” “The Zone of Interest” and “Anatomy of a Fall.”

This year, “Fjord,” along with other prizewinning films, including Andrey Zvyagintsev’s “Minotaur,” Pawel Pawlikowski’s “Fatherland,” Ryusuke Hamaguchi’s “All of a Sudden,” Javier Ambrossi and Javier Calvo’s “La Bola Negra,” as well as James Gray’s “Paper Tiger,” Jordan Firstman’s “Club Kid” and Ira Sachs’ “The Man I Love” are already being discussed as potential awards season contenders.

Frémaux also weighs in on why buzzy Un Certain Regard titles such as “Club Kid,” “Congo Boy” and “Teenage Sex or Death at Camp Miasma” generated more buzz some Competition entries. Defending the festival’s programming strategy, he argues that Un Certain Regard has become a key incubator for the next generation of Competition filmmakers and explains why moving “Club Kid” into Competition might not have served the film as well.

The Cannes chief also continues to be hopeful that Netflix will return to the Croisette, saying Ted Sarandos is welcome and arguing that the streamer’s comeback “would be a major event.” He pointed out Greta Gerwig’s upcoming Netflix film “Narnia: The Magician’s Nephew” which will have a theatrical rollout (in IMAX) around the world.

Our wide-ranging conversation also sees Frémaux addressing, for the first time, the controversy surrounding Canal+ and the petition targeting Vincent Bolloré which dominated headlines during the festival. While criticizing references to a “fascist vision” as excessive, Frémaux says Bolloré is openly pursuing “an ideological project” ahead of France’s next presidential election and acknowledges that concerns surrounding his growing influence over media, publishing and culture are legitimate subjects of debate.

This edition marks your 25th year as general delegate: you began in 2001. How do you look back on this 79th edition compared with your early years?

A Cannes edition is successful when everything runs smoothly in terms of organization, security, screenings, the welcoming of accredited guests, and when the jury delivers a strong awards lineup. Also when the Film Market is fruitful and the Festival remains the best place for industry business. Finally, when Cannes’ local businesses (hotels, restaurants) are satisfied — and they told me they were.
In 25 years, the Cannes Film Festival has changed; it has become more intense and more efficient. It is also calmer and friendlier. Its public has become a big asset. Without excessive optimism, in a world that is becoming harsher, the Festival, on the contrary, is opening up and improving. Thanks to festivalgoers, who are true lovers of cinema, it withstands the worst upheavals of our era: the acceleration of social media, the logic of influence, and the growing pressure of money. Before opening night, there are always a few people trying to spark controversies, but they are becoming rare and add nothing that has not already been said in the past. The Festival’s detractors are those who know it poorly, and they change their minds the day they arrive on the Croisette. Because as soon as it begins, cinema reigns supreme — the works, the artists, the professionals. At Cannes, if you are not talking about films… you are talking about nothing.

What do you consider the greatest successes of this edition?

I cannot single out one specific moment. During the Festival, I surrender myself to the atmosphere — I feel theaters vibrating, certain films standing out, opinions emerging. I also enjoy seeing a personal vision of the selections filter through the various juries (because there are many of them!). I also read some of the critical assessments once the edition is over. One of our growing successes lies in the way Cannes is connected to French movie theaters. The opening ceremony and film were broadcast in nearly 1,000 cinemas across France, a record achieved together with the National Federation of French Cinemas. Salvadori’s film thus enjoyed a major launch the day before its national release, in addition to the exceptional exposure offered by opening Cannes. And in June, the Official Selection expands into many theaters — arthouse cinemas as well as multiplexes — in Paris, throughout France, and even in certain European cities. We are happy about this communion with theaters and audiences. Otherwise, I would say that “Jim Queen’s” midnight screening was one of the most beautiful in the Festival’s history in terms of atmosphere, comparable to what “Priscilla, Queen of the Desert” once was, and the “Vin Diesel moment,” celebrating Fast & Furious, was quite extraordinary. And all of this at two in the morning!

Wait, you’re still out at 2 a.m.?

Yes, and most often at three! I invite the film teams, so it is only normal that I stay with them until the final applause. If that is at three in the morning, then I am by their side at three in the morning. We turn off the lights, close the Palais, and go to sleep (well, at least I do!) before starting all over again the next day!

No film truly caused a scandal this year. Has Cannes gone soft or have the movies become bland?

I do not think so. During the winter, discussions within the selection committee are very lively, and those on the Croisette are as well. Things are simply expressed differently. In the past, the trend was to slam seats or shout disapproval; today, it happens on smartphones, through the capillarity and extroversion of digital opinions. What is recent is the way audiences express themselves by celebrating the Festival logo at the beginning of every screening, applauding during screenings, and staying until the end credits to listen to artists speak — a newly established ritual. In Un Certain Regard, there were events like “Club Kid,” “Congo Boy,” the Rwandan film by Marie-Clémentine Dusajembo that won the Caméra d’Or, “Le Corset” which reflects the excellent health of animation at Cannes — and in special screenings, “Tangles” and “Lucy Lost” made a strong impression. In short, every day was a celebration.

Cannes long had the image of having an elitist audience…

That has changed because the audience has become considerably younger. A powerful phenomenon has emerged over the years: the major place now occupied by cinema fans. Sometimes I wonder myself where they come from, and I love seeing the most jaded cinephile become once again an anonymous and enthusiastic spectator. The midnight screenings, the beach cinema, the special screenings, documentaries, Cannes Classics — all are celebrations. The “3 Days in Cannes” initiative launched in 2018 for 18-25 year-olds also contributes to generational renewal. There are no longer separate categories isolated from one another: organizers, journalists, artists, professionals, young people, older people, novices and barons. The Croisette audience is made up of all these people.

James Gray once again leaves without a prize.

Personally, I say “Alas,” but the jury is sovereign. James Gray had a great festival. “Paper Tiger” was loved, the reviews are magnificent, and it sold well. It held a splendid place — we were delighted to welcome it. And the second American director in competition, Ira Sachs, also upheld his standing.

American star-driven films are rarely awarded in Cannes, unless the jury is presided over by an American. How do you convince Hollywood to come back under those conditions?

I am not sure those things are correlated, and we should not lump all American cinema together under the name Hollywood. Hollywood means the studios, and when they have blockbusters like Top Gun: Maverick or Mission: Impossible, they come! Generally, they are out of competition, so awards are not really their concern. The United States is the country that has won the most prizes and Palme d’Ors in Cannes. The most recent example actually invites us not to draw hasty conclusions: Sean Baker’s Anora won the Palme d’Or in Cannes before receiving the Oscar for Best Picture in 2025. But international cinema is strongly challenging U.S. cinema, as the Oscars prove. Each festival tells a different story; let us wait and see what future editions bring us.

But there were relatively few American stars this year…

Relatively, as you say. It is a classic evergreen topic: as soon as there are fewer American stars, people say there are none anymore. Nothing new compared with the 1950s or the 1980s. Let us not forget the appearances over the past three years of Tom Cruise, Julia Roberts, Tom Hanks, Leonardo DiCaprio, Robert De Niro, Martin Scorsese, The Weeknd, Michael Douglas, Emma Stone, Demi Moore, Kevin Costner, etc. This year, there were stars who are indeed a fundamental ingredient in a Festival’s success: Adam Driver, Kristen Stewart, Michael Fassbender, Rami Malek, Geena Davis, Cate Blanchett, Julianne Moore, Alicia Vikander, etc. Let us also add Javier Bardem and Penélope Cruz, who made fantastic appearances. And apologies to anyone I am forgetting. John Travolta came in majestic fashion for his first film as a director, and Vin Diesel was accompanied by his cast and the entire Universal studio team. Hollywood celebrations like those, we want more of them! To evaluate the Festival, you need to look over several years — at least five, I would say. And regarding the U.S., one must understand that its film industry is undergoing a profound restructuring. That is what needs to be studied and documented. But I hear that CinemaCon in Las Vegas this past spring created optimism.

What about the presence of American executives at the festival and market?

The United States is the second most represented country in Cannes. We approved the attendance of 39,993 accredited participants from 140 countries, including as many Americans as in 2025.

But do you think the geopolitical climate now affects American talent attendance in Cannes?

No, the love for American cinema remains intact, and the passion for stars is as strong as ever. Americans are welcome in Cannes, and they always have been. Of course, the whole world is affected by what is happening, with a planet under tension. Perhaps that is why there was such a feeling of peace during the two weeks of the Festival. It strengthens everyone’s conviction that cultural events are more necessary than ever in troubled times.

The competition included an unusually high number of French or French-language films. Is that a reflection of current global production, or a deliberate choice by the selection committee?

The competition included four French films, as usual, and there were also three Spanish films and three Japanese films. It is simply that the two Belgian films were French-language, and filmmakers like Farhadi or Hamaguchi chose to shoot in Paris in French. Thanks to its professionals, its sense of hospitality, and its efficient economic system, France is at the heart of world cinema, and international cinema benefits from it. The emergence of Spanish and Japanese cinema is not accidental either. These countries have a strong cinematic tradition and highly experienced professionals.

The jury seemed divided over the awards lineup. Some see this as a sign there was no real standout film. What is your opinion?

In everyone’s unanimous opinion, the selection was of a very high level. It was therefore difficult for them to distinguish between certain films. As you know, Iris Knobloch and I attend the final meeting establishing the awards lineup — without intervening, of course. The jury, under the excellent presidency of Park Chan-wook, who was both generous and confident, had extremely varied and highly democratic debates. The group brought together different professions, generations, styles, and geographic origins. They got along very well, but selecting seven awards from 22 films is never an easy task.

Why did you schedule ‘La Bola Negra’ at the end of the Festival and not at the start of the festival to give the competition a jolt?

“La Bola Negra” was not ready before the second week; it is already a miracle that it was completed in time, just like Lukas Dhont’s film. Cannes loves revelations and discoveries: Javier Calvo and Javier Ambrossi, “the Javis,” or Emmanuel Marre created wonderful surprises in competition. On the French side, we bet on female directors (Jeanne Herry, Charline Bourgeois-Tacquet, Léa Mysius) and young cinema (Arthur Harari). The gamble paid off, and we are happy about it.

Moreover, it is an opportunity to remind people that the second week is every bit as much a part of the Festival as the first. Producers often assume they need to be present at the beginning of a festival, but at Cannes that is simply not true. The Festival genuinely unfolds over twelve days, and its history shows that many films screened toward the end of the Festival have gone on to win the Palme d’Or.”

This year’s Cannes was shaken by political tensions due to the petition targeting Vincent Bolloré and Canal+. What did you think of it the controversy?

First of all, the festival itself is no longer the target of controversies, and that is a good thing. In fact, we were not involved in this one, even though Cannes was naturally chosen as a sounding board, because this is where the debate would receive strong attention — Cannes always offers an exceptional platform to those wishing to bring an issue into the public sphere. After that, petitions rarely change the course of things, and personally, I have reservations about the use of grand words: speaking of a “fascist vision” seems somewhat disproportionate. Violent vocabulary, whatever its justification, only adds to violence. It should be possible to engage in dialogue differently.

The boos against Canal+ when their logo appeared on screen during the gala screenings were quite loud!

There were boos, but it was not May ’68 either! The logos of France Télévisions or the CNC, as well as mentions of the regions hosting productions, received extremely enthusiastic applause, probably more than usual, as a deliberate act of support. In France, people are attached to public broadcasting. During the parliamentary hearings on public broadcasting, the Cannes Film Festival was attacked; who knows whether those boos were not a form of response? This petition must be placed within a tense French context, after several months of virulent criticism aimed at cinema. Your readers should know that Vincent Bolloré makes no secret of pursuing an ideological project with a view toward the next French presidential election. And that he is using his newspapers and television channels in the service of that ambition. He has the right to do so. But it raises questions for many people because it is no longer simply business but political engagement. Those who oppose it also have the right to do so.

And how did you react to Maxime Saada’s comments saying he would no longer work with signatories of the petition?

The Cannes Film Festival is attached to freedom of expression — that of the petition’s signatories as well as that of Canal+ and Maxime Saada. We know that we will all write the future together. I am sure this is also the conviction of Canal+’s leadership.

Are you worried about the financing of French cinema, given Canal+’s place in this ecosystem?

Canal+ has always fulfilled its obligations. There is therefore no reason to worry. Its executives have never suggested that they would stop doing so, and they know that lawmakers would remind them of their duties if failures were observed. During the Festival, CNC president Gaëtan Bruel reiterated the essential role of Canal+ and its executives. For my part, I repeated that Canal+ and StudioCanal have long been exemplary and brilliant companies with admirable teams. It is obvious that these teams, whose hurt feelings one can understand, are not being targeted by anyone. They have our full support.

During the “Moulin” press conference, Gilles Lellouche and László Nemes dodged a question about the RN and LFI (the far right and radical left parties) and have been bashed on social media. Do you think actors and filmmakers can afford to keep their distance from politics today?

The Festival respects artists’ speech, whether it is expressed through films, interviews, or our press conferences. They say what they want, within the framework of the law, which does not allow people to say just anything. But it is clear that the polarization of political debate and the fierce competition between traditional media and influencers creates ever greater media tension. People look for small phrases and blow up this or that episode. When you speak with Gilles Lellouche, you are speaking to a man with convictions. But during a press conference, he watches his words carefully, especially when a question is partisan. His commitment is to portray Jean Moulin in his final days. That is eloquent enough.

The speeches during the closing ceremony were politically charged but remained measured — with the exception of Andrey Zvyagintsev who took a risk addressing Putin directly.

Yes, the artists showed dignity and restraint during the closing ceremony. Zvyagintsev is in exile; he courageously protests against Putin’s criminal invasion of Ukraine. He spoke clearly. Nadine Labaki praised Lebanon, that beautiful country that no one seems to care about anymore. Film people do not live outside the world. If they speak out, it is because they are citizens like you and me.

Seeing some major auteurs like Pedro Almodovar or Asghar Farhadi leave with mixed reviews and without prizes, do you regret not having programmed their films out of competition instead?

They all want to come in competition!

In Un Certain Regard, films like “Club Kid,” “Teenage Sex or Death at Camp Miasma” or “Congo Boy” sometimes generated more buzz than some competition titles.

So much the better! Un Certain Regard is enjoying tremendous success: it nourishes the future competition. The competition cannot exceed 22 films, and we transformed it: among the 22 filmmakers, 11 were there for the first time and five for the second time — a 72% renewal rate. We must think about the future: the Festival must bring forward younger generations — and it is working!
Only five auteurs came more than three times in competition, and not the least significant ones: Zvyaguintsev, Gray, Almodóvar, Kore-eda and Mungiu. We were not going to deprive ourselves of them!

Why not put “Club Kid” in competition?

“Club Kid” was in Un Certain Regard, it was acclaimed and reached high sales prices, becoming one of the Festival’s major attractions. Would it have achieved the same success in competition? Jordan Firstman and his producers were happy with their Festival. We look forward to their next film.

Does that make you think differently about the balance between Competition and Un Certain Regard in the Festival’s programming?

We think about it all the time! By not concentrating everything on competition and by finding the right place for each film. It works for the market, for journalists, and for ordinary festivalgoers, who know that gems are hidden everywhere — like Ron Howard or Steven Soderbergh’s “experiments” in special screenings, or in Cannes Classics with films by Mark Cousins and documentaries about Bruce Dern and David Lean. There was also buzz around certain midnight films or documentaries like The Match, Les Survivants du Che, or Rehearsals for a Revolution by Pegah Ahangarani, which won the Golden Eye award for best documentary, with a jury chaired by Oscar-winning Ukrainian filmmaker Mstyslav Chernov, whom we were delighted to welcome.

Which films do you think will be nominated for Best Picture at the Oscars in 2027?

Making predictions is risky. Who could have expected the triumphs of “Parasite,” “Anatomy of a Fall,” “Emilia Pérez,” “Anora,” “Sentimental Value,” “Sirat,” or “The Secret Agent”? I am forgetting some. In any case, the Academy’s openness toward international cinema should be applauded. The Oscars allow films to enjoy an extraordinary final lap. As for 2027, there is still time and several months of cinema ahead before the first results arrive. Like you, I cannot wait to find out, delighted that films presented in Cannes as world premieres are also celebrated at the Oscars a few months later.

Is Ruben Östlund’s film already confirmed for the 2027 competition?

We have not seen anything yet. Ruben Östlund is at work. You will know more – and so will I! — in April 2027!

Will the Festival screen the first episode of “The White Lotus” in Cannes next year?

It has not yet been shot and is primarily intended to air on HBO. Like many others, I cannot wait to see it!

What are the chances of seeing Netflix return to the Cannes Film Festival?

Cannes opens its doors to everyone who makes cinema a central art form of our era, and Netflix contributes to that in a major way. Ted Sarandos knows he is welcome. One can have a fantastic presence in Cannes, as Warner, Universal, and Paramount recently did. Iris and I always hope to convince him to reconsider: Netflix’s return to Cannes would be a major event.
Moreover, Greta Gerwig’s film, which Netflix is producing and distributing, appears to be pursuing a strong and wide U.S. theatrical release strategy before streaming, and it will be fascinating to see how that unfolds. The theatrical experience remains a fundamental popular, media, and financial engine, but we must all work toward finally bringing the worlds of streaming and movie theaters closer together.

Next year will mark the 80th edition of the Cannes Film Festival. Do you already have specific plans or expectations for this symbolic edition?

Iris Knobloch and the Festival team have been thinking about it for several months. And we are already beginning the concrete preparation of this 80th edition. With one primary intention: inviting all those who have made the Festival’s history. The Cannes Film Festival is a collective celebration and must remain one.

You have the presidential election in France next year. What are the dates for Cannes in 2027?

Yes, every five years, the presidential election takes place in April. It has never caused any problem. The 80th Cannes Film Festival will take place from May 11 to May 22, 2027 — we will be there!